Exploring relationships between Kolb’s learning styles and mobile learning readiness of pre-service teachers: A mixed study

Abstract

The aim of this research is to reveal relations between Kolb's learning styles and mobile learning readiness of pre-service teachers in depth in regard to different variables and identify their mobile learning perspectives. The study group consisted of 352 students enrolled in undergraduate programs in education faculties of different universities in Turkey. The convergent parallel design was used as a mixed method strategy. The survey model, as a quantitative component, was used to describe the present situation and embedded interviews, as a qualitative component, were carried out to deeply reveal pre-service teachers' perspectives on mobile learning depending on their learning styles. The "Learning Styles Inventory -Version III" as well as the "Mobile Learning Readiness Scale" were administered to participants. ANOVA, Tukey-HSD test and Structural Equation Modelling were used to analyze the quantitative data. The qualitative data were analyzed by the content analysis method. Results suggest that 126 (36%) of the pre-service participating in the study were with the assimilating learning style, 92 (26.29%) participants were with the diverging learning style, 73 (20.85%) were with the converging learning style and 59 (16.85%) were with the accommodating learning style. Furthermore, it was observed that there is a statistically significant relationship between the learning styles of the pre-service teachers and their mlearning readiness. In addition, it was observed that while optimism, self-directed learning and self-efficacy have a strong effect on m-learning; mother education, monthly income, gender, internet use frequency have a moderate effect on mlearning within different learning styles. Qualitative data were also in line with the results of quantitative data. Findings were discussed in light of relevant literature.

The Study of Relationship between Kolb’s Learning Styles, Gender and Learning American Slang‎ by Iranian EFL Students

“…Meanwhile, every individual uses a number of learning styles in tackling any problemhowever in different extent-which lead to the conclusion that there is significant correlation between different four types of learning styles and slang learning and this point is emphasized by Ata and Cevik, (2018); Silver, Strong and Perini (1997) who emphasize the balance among different types of learning styles. Hence, the study also indicated that it is not a predominant learning style that may result into the increase and improvement of the slang learning but the balance among the four Kolb's Learning Styles and the total learning style is crucial and fundamental.…”

Learning preference: development in smart learning environments

“…Table 3 summarizes the impacts of learning preferences. Based on the results, researchers were interested in understanding the effects of learning preferences (Oliveira et al , 2020) on students’ learning performance (Ata & Cevik, 2019) and course satisfaction (Ramirez-Correa et al , 2017).…”

“…The differences in learning performance between learners with different learning preference types were also examined. Ata and Cevik (2019) focused on the influence of learners’ learning preferences on learning readiness in m-learning. Based on ELT, the authors surveyed 352 undergraduates to obtain learners’ learning preferences and learning readiness.…”

“…The impacts of learning preference difference on learning performance (Ata & Cevik, 2019; Bishouty et al , 2019)and the improvement in learning performance with adopting learning preference in recommendations (Samia & Amirat, 2017) have been widely studied. Most of the studies found that there is a significant relationship between learning preference and learning performance (Meurer et al , 2018; Ren et al , 2017), while several studies came to opposite conclusions(Brunton, 2015; Camacho et al , 2017).…”

Students’ Readiness in Implementing Mobile Learning for English Language Learning Purposes

“…Many recent studies (e.g. Ata & Cevik, 2019;Baş & Sarıgöz, 2018;Eroğlu et al, 2017;Tezer & Beyoğlu, 2018) have used this scale to investigate students m-learning readiness.…”